Badgers or sea cows/seals

[franklinmonroe]

It seems to me that the KJV translation was consistent with the best available scholarship.

An eloquent statement, with which I can agree wholeheartedly.

 

[franklinmonroe]

...an independent Peshitta witness not connected with the English bibles would be a very important evidential witness...

Yes, it would. I only pointed out that there are published reasons for having reservation about Lamsa's version as being an accurrate representation of the Peshitta.

 

[Keith M]

Good deal. You sounded upset.

A.F.

Sorry! I didn't intend to sound upset.

 

[Herb Evans]

Originally Posted by Herb Evans
But are you not assuming that the KJB is wrong on the word "badger?"

Here comes the good old KJVO tactic of putting words in the mouths of others. This is a dishonest tactic you guys use to try to hide the dishonesty of the KJVO myth. You guys fall back on this as one of many tactics when you're getting painted into a corner, don't you? Herbie, if you'll stop throwing around these false accusations, and if you check what I have said, you will find that not once did I say the KJV is wrong. I have said that, since the meaning of the original Hebrew tachash is unknown, we have no real way of knowing what is the proper word and what isn't the proper word. You blindly believe that the word "badger" can be the only possible word in this passage simply because that is the word chosen by KJV Bible and manuscript correctors.

Tactic? Accusation? Dishonest? Are you getting a little bit paranoid? All I did was ask you a question that you did not even answer. For argument's sake, let us say that I am assuming that "badger" is correct. Are you assuming that the KJB "badger" is wrong as well as the other Bibles that have it? Now, what is so difficult about that? Or are you painted in the corner of non-answers? -- Herb Evans

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herb Evans
But what you do not know is that I know the tactics of those who like to correct Bibles and am prepared for them.


Oh, I'm sure you are, Herbie. You folks who follow the KJVO myth must spend hour upon hour coming up with new and creative ways to try to fight the truth. All you come up with are the same old methods and falsehoods, Herbie. It is actually those who follow the KJVO myth who are the "Bible correctors," Herbie. Followers of the KJVO myth seek to make all Bible versions agree with the KJV. And if those versions don't agree with the KJV, then they need to be corrected in your reasoning.

It is sad when anyone falls into the trap of the KJVO myth. The KJVO myth is based on deliberate misrepresentations and ignorance of the truth. I am praying that one day soon you will accept the truth, Herbie. I suppose that until that day your lame tactics and excuses will continue. I now have another name to add to the ignore list. It is strange that the majority of names on my ignore list are supporters of the KJVO myth. Wonder why that is???

Well, if all you can do is go into an ad hominem rant over KJO's instead of sticking with the issue at hand, I don't know what to tell you. Specifically, what are the falsehoods and deliberate misrepresentations of the truth, or do you always castigate folks with generalities? Are KJO's the issue here or are "badgers?" Seems like the above question has really set you off. Can't you answer it with a "yes" or a "no" rather than with a scourging of me or KJO's? I thought the lack of civility was supposed to be only among KJO's? -- Hreb Evans

 

[franklinmonroe]

...All I would like to know from you is what the Peshitta says if Lamsa copied the KJB as you accused him...

The online Aramaic English Standard Version has the following from Exodus:

25:1 Mar-Yah spoke to Mosha, saying,
25:2 “Speak to the B’nai Yisrael, that they take an offering for me. From everyone whose heart makes him willing you shall take my offering.
25:3 This is the offering which you shall take from them: gold, silver, brass,
25:4 blue, purple, scarlet, fine linen, goats’ hair,
25:5 rams’ skins dyed red, sea cow hides, acacia wood,
25:6 oil for the light, spices for the anointing oil and for the sweet incense,
25:7 onyx stones, and stones to be set for the ephod and for the breastplate.
25:8 Let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them.
25:9 According to all that I show you, the pattern of the Tabernacle, and the pattern of all of its furniture, even so you shall make it.

An online The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts by Dr. George Lamsa has:

25:1 And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,
25:2 Speak to the Israelites to set aside an offering for me; of every man that gives it willingly with his heart you shall take an offering.
25:3 And this is the offering which you shall take of them: gold, silver, and brass,
25:4 Blue, purple, and scarlet, fine linen, and goats' hair,
25:5 And rams' skins dyed red, skins dyed with vermilion, and shittim wood,
25:6 Oil for the lamps, spices for anointing oil, and for sweet incense,
25:7 Onyx stones, and precious stones to be set in the ephod and in the breastplate.
25:8 And let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them.
25:9 According to all that I show you, after the pattern of the tabernacle and the pattern of all the vessels thereof, even so shall you make it.

It seems that Lamsa does not have "badgers" as you implied. As can be seen, the Lamsa generally reads very similarly to the KJV (sometimes word for word) but at this particular verse chose not to follow the translation of "badgers". Both these Peshitta versions are witnesses against the KJV rendering.

The KJV has:

25:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
25:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring me an offering: of every man that giveth it willingly with his heart ye shall take my offering.
25:3 And this is the offering which ye shall take of them; gold, and silver, and brass,
25:4 And blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine linen, and goats' hair,
25:5 And rams' skins dyed red, and badgers' skins, and shittim wood,
25:6 Oil for the light, spices for anointing oil, and for sweet incense,
25:7 Onyx stones, and stones to be set in the ephod, and in the breastplate.
25:8 And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them.
25:9 According to all that I shew thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it.

 

[Herb Evans]

That cognate theory has been suggested by several commentators. I suspect it is merely conjecture though.

It appears that the French Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaki (AKA RASHI) (1064 to 1105) equated TACHASH to BADGER in his comments at Ezekiel 16:10. This is likely where Luther and the others got it from. Presumably RASHI got it from rabbinical sources. I have no clue where though. This was well before Luther (bn. 1483) or Tyndale (bn. 1494).

It seems to me that the KJV translation was consistent with the best available scholarship. A.F.

Not much to sink my teeth in here except for the last comment, which is appropriate. -- Herb Evans

 

[Herb Evans]

Originally Posted by Herb Evans
...All I would like to know from you is what the Peshitta says if Lamsa copied the KJB as you accused him...

The online Aramaic English Standard Version has the following from Exodus:
Quote:
25:1 Mar-Yah spoke to Mosha, saying,
25:2 “Speak to the B’nai Yisrael, that they take an offering for me. From everyone whose heart makes him willing you shall take my offering.
25:3 This is the offering which you shall take from them: gold, silver, brass,
25:4 blue, purple, scarlet, fine linen, goats’ hair,
25:5 rams’ skins dyed red, sea cow hides, acacia wood,
25:6 oil for the light, spices for the anointing oil and for the sweet incense,
25:7 onyx stones, and stones to be set for the ephod and for the breastplate.
25:8 Let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them.
25:9 According to all that I show you, the pattern of the Tabernacle, and the pattern of all of its furniture, even so you shall make it.
An online The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts by Dr. George Lamsa has:
Quote:
25:1 And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,
25:2 Speak to the Israelites to set aside an offering for me; of every man that gives it willingly with his heart you shall take an offering.
25:3 And this is the offering which you shall take of them: gold, silver, and brass,
25:4 Blue, purple, and scarlet, fine linen, and goats' hair,
25:5 And rams' skins dyed red, skins dyed with vermilion, and shittim wood,
25:6 Oil for the lamps, spices for anointing oil, and for sweet incense,
25:7 Onyx stones, and precious stones to be set in the ephod and in the breastplate.
25:8 And let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them.
25:9 According to all that I show you, after the pattern of the tabernacle and the pattern of all the vessels thereof, even so shall you make it.
It seems that Lamsa does not have 'badgers" as you claimed. As can be seen, the Lamsa generally reads very similarly to the KJV (sometimes word for word) but at this particular verse chose not to follow the transaltion of "badgers". Both these Peshitta versions are witnesses agaist the KJV rendering.

The KJV has:
Quote:
25:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
25:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring me an offering: of every man that giveth it willingly with his heart ye shall take my offering.
25:3 And this is the offering which ye shall take of them; gold, and silver, and brass,
25:4 And blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine linen, and goats' hair,
25:5 And rams' skins dyed red, and badgers' skins, and shittim wood,
25:6 Oil for the light, spices for anointing oil, and for sweet incense,
25:7 Onyx stones, and stones to be set in the ephod, and in the breastplate.
25:8 And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them.
25:9 According to all that I shew thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it.

Well, with scholarship like that, we can all go home. Did you check Ex. 39:34; 36:19; Num. 4;6,8,10, 12? Of course, you didn't. Those are the verses to which I referred. :sleep: -- Herb Evans

 

[franklinmonroe]

Well, with scholarship like that, we can all go home. Did you check Ex. 39:34; 36:19; Num. 4;6,8,10, 12? Of course, you didn't. Those are the verses to which I referred. :sleep: -- Herb Evans

Actually, I did. The Lamsa does use "badgers" at those references.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

What exactly were his comments?

He just gave his reading of the verse.


Here is the text with comments from Ezekiel 16:10 from The Judica Press Complete Tanach with Rashi.
http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=63255

(You have to select the "show Rashi commentary" line near the top of the page or you only get the Bible text).


10. And I clothed you with embroidered garments, and I shod you with [the skin of the] badger, and I girded you with fine linen, and I covered you with silk.
And I clothed you with embroidered garments "And I clothed you with embroidered garments of the spoils of your enemies."
and I shod you with badger [Jonathan renders:] And I put shoes of glory on your feet.
and I girded you Heb. וָאֶחְבְּשֵּׁךּ. [Jonathan renders:] and I hallowed priests of you to be serving before Me with turbans of fine linen.
and I covered you with silk Heb. מֶשִּׁי, soie in French. And the High Priest with colored raiment, and [according to] Midrash Aggadah (Mid. Song 4:2), these are the seven clouds of glory, as it is written (Exod. 13:22): "He did not move (יָמִישּׁ) the pillar of cloud by day."

By the way, comments (and translation) at Exodus 25:5 and Numbers 4:25 suggest that Rashi took his information from various sources. Most probably they were earlier commentaries on each book. In other places this translation goes with "tachash skins."

A.F.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

Not much to sink my teeth in here except for the last comment, which is appropriate. -- Herb Evans

Sorry about that Herb. That kind of thing comes from reading too many scholarly works.

A.F.

 

[Inadequate in Myself]

He just gave his reading of the verse.


Here is the text with comments from Ezekiel 16:10 from The Judica Press Complete Tanach with Rashi.
http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=63255

(You have to select the "show Rashi commentary" line near the top of the page or you only get the Bible text).


10. And I clothed you with embroidered garments, and I shod you with [the skin of the] badger, and I girded you with fine linen, and I covered you with silk.
And I clothed you with embroidered garments "And I clothed you with embroidered garments of the spoils of your enemies."
and I shod you with badger [Jonathan renders:] And I put shoes of glory on your feet.
and I girded you Heb. וָאֶחְבְּשֵּׁךּ. [Jonathan renders:] and I hallowed priests of you to be serving before Me with turbans of fine linen.
and I covered you with silk Heb. מֶשִּׁי, soie in French. And the High Priest with colored raiment, and [according to] Midrash Aggadah (Mid. Song 4:2), these are the seven clouds of glory, as it is written (Exod. 13:22): "He did not move (יָמִישּׁ) the pillar of cloud by day."

By the way, comments (and translation) at Exodus 25:5 and Numbers 4:25 suggest that Rashi took his information from various sources. Most probably they were earlier commentaries on each book. In other places this translation goes with "tachash skins."

A.F.

I have been checking in to see if this discussion would get back to the values of translating the Hebrew, rather than being a KJVO debate. As long as it is the latter I am really not interested as I have a high appreciation for the KJV, but my first allegiance is to the Hebrew. However, the use of Rabbi Rashi here cannot go unchallenged.

You are confusing the text "below and above the line" (that is modern quotation with ancient commentary). The translation "badger" in Ezekiel 16:10 in the notes is the modern one by Rosenberg. The bold in the comments sections do not go back to Rashi, they are simply there so you know which part of the text his comments apply to. In none of Rashi's comments does he identify the tachash with badger, in fact his quotation of Rabbi Jonathan suggests he didn't see it this way. In the Exodus passage he simply says it was animal that was around for a while, but now gone (something hardly true of the badger).

I am sorry, but there is no evidence here of his usage of the term as you describe.

If you want to argue tachash means badger, you (at present) have to do so with no ancient linguistic support to do so.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Well, with scholarship like that, we can all go home...

"Scholarship" like what? I did not claim to be a scholar, but what do you object with?

I simply responded to your request to show the Peshitta reading at this verse (from two different sources). I included the KJV reading to show the similarity of Lamsa's version to the KJV text. What is wrong with that?

 

[Herb Evans]

Originally Posted by Herb Evans
Well, with scholarship like that, we can all go home. Did you check Ex. 39:34; 36:19; Num. 4;6,8,10, 12? Of course, you didn't. Those are the verses to which I referred. -- Herb Evans

Actually, I did. The Lamsa does use "badgers" at those references.

Well, why did you hide them from us, were you skewing the argument in your favor, since you said the following? -- Herb Evans

It seems that Lamsa does not have 'badgers" as you claimed. As can be seen, the Lamsa generally reads very similarly to the KJV (sometimes word for word) but at this particular verse chose not to follow the transaltion of "badgers". Both these Peshitta versions are witnesses agaist the KJV rendering.

:sleep:

 

[Herb Evans]

If you want to argue tachash means badger, you (at present) have to do so with no ancient linguistic support to do so.

Well, if you want to argue TACHASH, you must include Abraham's relative. The animal must have been fairly known to name someone after it. You know, "Leave it to Beaver." -- Herb Evans

 

[Herb Evans]

"Scholarship" like what? I did not claim to be a scholar, but what do you object with?

I simply responded to your request to show the Peshitta reading at this verse (from two different sources). I included the KJV reading to show the similarity of Lamsa's version to the KJV text. What is wrong with that?

The wrong is in your statement.

It seems that Lamsa does not have 'badgers" as you claimed.

The places where Lamsa uses non-KJB wording for "badger" disproves your case rather than confirms it. -- Herb Evans

 

[AntennaFarmer]

You are confusing the text "below and above the line" (that is modern quotation with ancient commentary). The translation "badger" in Ezekiel 16:10 in the notes is the modern one by Rosenberg.

I won't deny that I could have made such a mistake (especially given the resources at hand).

Perhaps you can shed light on why these translators chose to use badger at this point (per Rosenberg).

A.F.

 

[Herb Evans]

Sorry about that Herb. That kind of thing comes from reading too many scholarly works.A.F.

LOL! That is okay, you were giving it a Kentucky try. No harm done. Besides someone else is after you. -- Herb Evans

 

[Herb Evans]

I have been checking in to see if this discussion would get back to the values of translating the Hebrew, rather than being a KJVO debate

Well, I am a KJVO and have been trying to avoid it, but there are some on this thread that are obsessed and incensed with KJVO's. I can't help that. -- Herb Evans

 

[Inadequate in Myself]

Well, if you want to argue TACHASH, you must include Abraham's relative. The animal must have been fairly known to name someone after it. You know, "Leave it to Beaver." -- Herb Evans

:smilewinkgrin: I like a good sense of humor.

Now addressing, the comparison:
This is assuming of course that the relative is named after an animal - a possibility, but not a necessity. Even if one did, however, there is nothing to say that the name is not applied to the dugong, or dolphin.

Again, there are other suitable explanations that have nothing to do with an animal - place names = Kurtahshi, (referred to in the Amarna tablets, contemporary with Moses), which is usually identified with a city south of Kadesh.

But again, the Gen. passage referring to Abraham's relative, doesn't give the translation of "badger" anywhere.

 

[Inadequate in Myself]

I won't deny that I could have made such a mistake (especially given the resources at hand).

Perhaps you can shed light on why these translators chose to use badger at this point (per Rosenberg).

A.F.

I can't answer why they went that route, though it is a recent translation. As I said above, the translation badger is very recent (relatively speaking). It probably has to do with the fact that that is the route many Europeans went, beginning just prior to the Reformation.

I can't firmly rule out it being a specific animal since it is placed in juxtaposition with "skins" in several places. But since badger lacks any (presently speaking) ancient support as a translation of tachash, it seems highly implausible.